The notion that Santorum is the flavor of the month is liberal-minded talking point nonsense

By Mike Thayer

The fact that there was a political candidate flavor of the month thing going on with the GOP Presidential nomination process is undeniable.

Riding a wave of popularity, Michele Bachmann won the Iowa Straw Poll back in August.  She stumbled on the campaign trail and lost favor, er, flavor.

With that, people started looking elsewhere and along came Rick Perry, immediately shooting up to front-runner status with his presidential announcement, entering the race.  His position at the top didn't last long though, he stumbled on the debate stage.

Then eyes turned to Herman Cain in late August, through September.  His 9-9-9 plan was intriguing, he's a likeable guy, he won the Florida straw poll.  He stumbled on media coverage.

Newt Gingrich flirted with front-runner status, his debate performances inspired many.  He stumbled on his own record and trying to attack his attackers.       

Then come the contest events of 2012, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, Nevada, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, Maine.  Eight of those nine contest were won by either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney.  Newt Gingrich won South Carolina.

Mitt Romney has never been given flavor of the month status.  Despite never getting beyond the 25 - 30 percent threshold of likeability from the GOP's conservative base, he's been given presumptive nominee status by the party establishment and the media since the start of this cycle.

Now contrast Mitt Romney's presumptive nominee mantle along with the flavor of the month status for others, to Rick Santorum.  Never taken seriously by the establishment or the media until late December, Santorum has won four out of the nine primary/caucus contests thus far, winning three out of three at one point.  We're not talking straw party polls or the lastest Rasmussen telephone poll here.  We're talking solid primary and caucus victories, involving the vote tallys of hundreds of thousands of people.  In two of the most recent victories, Missouri and Minnesota, Santorum won by double digits.  That's not flavor of the month folks.  That's favorite, period. 

So the liberal-minded mantra that Santorum is the current flavor of the month is nothing more than liberal pundits like Rachel Maddow expressing a desire for Santorum to merely be a flavor of the month, projecting her rhetoric as if its true.   It's people like Maddow's wish, not reality. 

Santorum is ahead in Michigan, with voters in the Wolverine state deciding on January 28 who they want their nominee to be.  Should Santorum win, that will be state victory #5. 

Seriously now, how can that be considered flavor of the month?

Don't listen to liberal-minded nonsense. 

Comments

[SDJammer]

Mike, you are correct in that the author of the article below is a noted democrat. However, he is one of the few democrats that have actually displayed any degree of analytical capabilities. Therefore, you might be a little premature in belittling his thoughts.

Time will tell if Santorum can win the nomination. I am afraid your enthusiasm ignores the reality that Santorum will probably struggle in the primaries outside of the heartland. And he is a toss-up to win in his home state of Pennsylvania. I recently talked to a very conservative person from Pennsylvania and they had no interest in supporting Santorum. They were going to support Gingrich. When asked why, they simply said we KNOW Santorum.

If Santorum does win the nomination, I will enthusiastically support him. However, I believe he has almost zero chance of beating Obama. I am afraid that a Santorum nomination will ensure Obama’s re-election. In which case, it is advisable for people to begin converting their US Dollars into gold or some other paper currency before it loses even more value than it already has. Four more years of Obama means “game over” for life as we know it.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/polls-now-favor-santorum-ninth-flip-nomination-221346240.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/david-rothschild-bio-002622072.html

[Mike Thayer, Publisher]

SDJammer,

I didn’t belittle David Rothschild, didn’t mention him, didn’t quote him, didn’t link to him. Before today, I didn’t even know who he was - let alone that he is a Democrat - so your reference to him is both curious and without foundation.

Santorum has won four state contests out of nine to date, the same number of victories as Romney. Simply put, characterizing Santorum’s status as ‘flavor of the month’ isn’t legitimate.

If I belittled anyone or more appropriately, any ‘thing,’ it was liberal-minded thought.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_santorum_vs_obama-2912.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Obama vs. Santorum – Obama +8
Obama vs. Romney – Obama +5.9

That’s only a difference of 2.1 between Romney and Santorum, within any reasonable margin of error. It should also be noted that Romney’s gap from Obama is trending wider (slightly) and Santorum’s trend indicates a gap that's shrinking. That’s polling, take it with a grain of salt.

It’s only February my friend, there’s a lot of politicking to be done between now and the GOP convention, and from there to the general election.

[SDJammer]

My mistake Mike. I thought you were referring to a comment that I had made awhile back when I used this guy's article as a reference.

I don't know the guy and could care less if you belittle him. However, I do think we often make a mistake by not taking some of these liberals seriously. And I agree there now appears to be a lot of politicking left between now and the GOP convention. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it will only hurt us and help Obama. The one thing that I absolutely know is that whoever the Republican nominee is; they will have less money to spend against Obama as a result.

[randy crawford]

Romney's homosexual backers are very fearful of what is happening with his campaign, and are lining up Chris Christie to appear to be a palatable stand-in. A lot of Romney's support has been coming from the "Log Cabin" posers who have been titillated thinking a homo-friendly guy like Romney can become their very own Republican nominee-- if only they can put out enough manipulative fog. (see www.massresistance.com and www.massresistance.org for Romney information from back home in Massachusetts) Now that the Romney juggernaut is slipping beneath the waves they are readying their alternative-- Chris Christie of New Jersey. All the little anesthetized munchkins across America are supposed to think Chris Christie is a big conservative champion standing up to the perverts because he just vetoed same-sex 'marriage.' That's a nice fabricated illusion, but in reality Christie (like his pals Terry Branstad, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mike Bloomberg, and etc. ad nauseam who have faked being "Republicans") is just posing. The homosexual interests in New Jersey helped get the same-sex 'marriage' bill through specifically so that Christie could deceive ripe suckers and appear to be a grand knight in shining armor, riding to the rescue with his veto to be the 'true Conservative' who is just now saving his state from a homosexual power grab. For anyone too dumb to realize Christie is actually a front-man and proponent for the selfsame homosexual scheming, such voters are being set up to defect and default to him in case Romney stumbles too badly at the end of February and particularly on Super Tuesday. This little scam is just bubbling along for now in its embryonic phase, but as soon as enough people realize Romney is toast, the homosexual lobby will trot out Christie as the anointed 'real Conservative' and hope nobody notices the fresh hurried paint job. It's just a new way of coming out of the closet without coming out of the closet, and trying to sneak more David Souters onto the Supreme Court.

[SDJammer]

Randy, with comments like yours, it is easy to understand why the conservative movement is struggling to gain critical mass. Yes true conservatives believe in conservative principles. However, they total far less than the 50% plus majority that is needed to get the country back on the right track.

To gain critical mass we are going to need to persuade enough middle of the road people who don't know what to believe. I doubt if we will ever convince many progressives to change their political beliefs. However, there are enough people in the middle that if they move to the right, we can win this war. Unfortunately irrational rants like yours do little to convince them that conservative values and principles are the answers to our problems.

I maintain that conservatives need to be pragmatic in their assessment of the situation and more importantly their strategy to restoring the Constitution and getting back on the right path. We did not get to where we are at in one huge leap, it occurred in a million small steps over the last century. I do not think a sound strategy to get back to what the Founders established is one single giant step in November. It simply will not happen with one single step regardless of who the Republican nominee is. I believe that we need to accept that small steps back in the right direction are not only an acceptable method to restore our country but maybe the only logical process that will actually work.

Therefore, I have come to the realization that defeating Obama in November is the important turning point. If it takes a candidate that is less conservative than I would like, I am OK with it because I believe that another 4 years of Obama will take us past the point of no return. That will only cause me a few years of pain, but I am so concerned for my little grandchildren who will never have the liberties and opportunities for success that I did.

Rather than using your time to make wild rants that will only chase the middle of the road people away from our cause, I suggest that you spend some of your time actually helping the cause. Here is a good place to help. This group of conservatives is working very hard but they are struggling to finish their job. Your time could be much better spent helping to make a difference than making wild rants.

http://verifytherecall.com/

[SDJammer]

Conservatives need to get analytical in the decision making process if we want to have ANY chance whatsoever of beating Obama in November. Here is the reality of the situation we are facing.

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2012presidentindividual

[Randy Crawford]

SDJammer: Romney's agenda is the wild rant if you pay attention to what he is actually up to behind the insipid smile and the insane affinity for great matters of state like how high the trees are in Michigan. I'm simply pointing out what criminal perverts don't like the gullible to notice. Like for instance his perverted hypocrite extortionist pal Sheriff Babeu, who was recently exposed in Arizona. If you want demented deviants like that team running the show, you might as well settle for any old Roman circus like Obama's. Romney and Obama are actually on the same team, if you look at what they really stand for. Got doubts? Just google "Romney top contributors" and "Obama top contributors" to quickly fetch up the data from opensecrets.org. Both Obama and Romney want the banks to enslave us with hundreds of billions of dollars of bogus debt contrived out of thin air by Democrat scams like Dodd-Frank, another homo curiously enough. But it's not so curious if you learn which crowd Romney is actually running with. The "middle of the road" people don't understand they've already been run into the ditch, and they don't understand who by. America will continue to go down the tubes with either Romney or Obama until they do understand. Around here, the going down the tubes is thanks to admitted lesbians like Janelle Rettig and her boosters who aren't out of the closet yet. Let the homos and their friends be in charge, and you get lesbians like Anne Cleary setting Lu Gang off on his murderous rampage, homos like Steve Sueppel clubbing innocent family members to death, or lesbian Susan Johnson killing babies at the Emma Goldman abortion mill and generating thousands of dollars in profits that can be diverted to fund Democrat campaigns. But if you can't connect the dots, you'll be like the custodians of our safety who were warned about Pearl Harbor or 9/11 before they happened, only to let Americans needlessly and stupidly die for nothing. Romney can call himself a Republican, but that doesn't mean the label fits what's inside the box.

[Randy Crawford]

google "Obama top contributors" and you will find from opensecrets.org the following:
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

[Randy Crawford]

google "Romney top contributors" and you will find the following from opensecrets.org. That's why making a selection between Romney and Obama is like deciding between arsenic and strycchnine. Of course, what you swallow is up to you:
Goldman Sachs $521,180
JPMorgan Chase & Co $356,400
Morgan Stanley $297,550
Credit Suisse Group $296,160
Citigroup Inc $280,050
Bank of America $245,900
Kirkland & Ellis $225,202
Barclays $217,150
HIG Capital $188,500
PricewaterhouseCoopers $185,550
Blackstone Group $178,050
Bain Capital $151,500
Wells Fargo $148,950
UBS AG $140,650
EMC Corp $128,300
Citadel Investment Group $123,625
Elliott Management $123,500
Bain & Co $112,800
Sullivan & Cromwell $106,650
The Villages $97,500